Stewart v Wallace

[jclalor 12]

Jon Stewart Cleans Wallace's clock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwyUdBp-cck

[kelpdiver 2]

can't say he clocked him - Wallace would never actually let him complete a sentence. I find those sorts of interviews very annoying - Stewart had some very intriguing arguments to make and I only could hear the opening half of them.

At least he got in the one about Fox viewers.

[quade 4]

Quote

can't say he clocked him - Wallace would never actually let him complete a sentence. I find those sorts of interviews very annoying - Stewart had some very intriguing arguments to make and I only could hear the opening half of them.

Agreed. Wallace even completely changed topics and tossed to an ABC/Diane Sawyer clip in the middle of one of Stewart's replies!

I think Wallace is scared of letting Stewart talk to a conclusion.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

At least he got in the one about Fox viewers.

Politifact disagrees on that one:

"So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

At least he got in the one about Fox viewers.

Politifact disagrees on that one:

"So we have three Pew studies that superficially rank Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but in several of the surveys, Fox isn’t the lowest, and other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often score similarly low. Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience."

Link?

Wait, never mind, found it.

They give Stewart a "false" on the claim of "every" poll showing it.

"The way Stewart phrased the comment, it’s not enough . . ."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

can't say he clocked him - Wallace would never actually let him complete a sentence. I find those sorts of interviews very annoying - .....

I COMPLETELY agree. That interview style drives me nuts. Stewart is even guilty at times on his show. A good interviewer asks a question and then allows an answer. He/she also speaks less than his guest.

I do have a question for the right wing media. What would they call a reporter who simply stated what happened at an event without any sort of spin? Is that liberal because it doesn't put pressure on the left? I get the impression, especially from the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd, that if a report doesn't either promote the "conservative" angle or take it to the left in some form then it's "liberal".

I think that market based media sucks. When you get your news from the same people who feed you, clothe you, entertain you, lend money to you, drug you and defend you, the quality and completeness of the information you receive suffers dramatically.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

can't say he clocked him - Wallace would never actually let him complete a sentence. I find those sorts of interviews very annoying - .....

I COMPLETELY agree. That interview style drives me nuts. Stewart is even guilty at times on his show. A good interviewer asks a question and then allows an answer. He/she also speaks less than his guest.

I do have a question for the right wing media. What would they call a reporter who simply stated what happened at an event without any sort of spin? Is that liberal because it doesn't put pressure on the left? I get the impression, especially from the Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly crowd, that if a report doesn't either promote the "conservative" angle or take it to the left in some form then it's "liberal".

I think that market based media sucks. When you get your news from the same people who feed you, clothe you, entertain you, lend money to you, drug you and defend you, the quality and completeness of the information you receive suffers dramatically.

Mmmmmmmmm Trickle.......mmmmmmmmmm

Today in Libya rebel forces moved towards Misrata


Mmmmmmmmm Trickle.......mmmmmmmmmm


John Boener today announced that no judicial nominations would be allowed to go forward.....


Mmmmmmmmm Trickle.......mmmmmmmmmm

[billvon 3,085]

>Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean
>Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even
>outpacing Stewart’s own audience."

Which, I think, was one of Stewart's main points. It's both strange and a little sad that Fox News compares themselves to a comedy show as a source of news information for people.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Hopefully you understand that like Stewart, Hannity, O'Reilley, Limbaugh etc. are simply entertainers who comment on politics. They don't bill themselves as comedians per se (although some of what they say is pretty funny) but they are entertainers, not serious news reporters.

[wmw999 2,556]

But they are rabble-rousing entertainers, suggesting opinions (and sometimes actions) to others.

By not deliberately taking on the name of "comic" they muddy the line. Some probably deliberately, others not so much so.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

But they are rabble-rousing entertainers, suggesting opinions (and sometimes actions) to others.

By not deliberately taking on the name of "comic" they muddy the line. Some probably deliberately, others not so much so.

Wendy P.

So what? I've never understood why lefties get so upset about what Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly have to say. I've never heard any of them descibe themselves as serious news people. Why should they bill themselves as comics when they aren't. They are very upfront about being commentators.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Hopefully you understand that like Stewart, Hannity, O'Reilley, Limbaugh etc. are simply entertainers who comment on politics. They don't bill themselves as comedians per se (although some of what they say is pretty funny) but they are entertainers, not serious news reporters.

Stewart is an entertainer who comments on politics but focuses mainly on the failures of news media. In FOX's case that's agenda driven. In the rest of the corporate media it's, as Stewart puts it, "sensationalist and lazy".
Hannity, Limbaugh and O'Reilly (and Roger Ailes for that matter) comment on politics but are agenda driven to change America's social and political direction. Hannity is probably the most aggressive when you consider the national tours (Stop [insert non-conservative-politician's name] express) he helps host. Fox is mostly opinion based broadcasting with enough "news" thrown in to confuse viewers. Heck, even FOX admits they're not "news".

Fox News Senior VP Michael Clemente said in the statement, “and the average news consumer can certainly distinguish between the A-section of the newspaper and the editorial page, which is what our programming represents.

[labrys 0]

Reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Stewart: "You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls."

Owned by Remi #?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

So what? I've never understood why lefties get so upset about what Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly have to say.

Because they lead an army of angry, misinformed "Hannitized" "dittoheads" who think that their brand of humor and commentary are indeed news. And actually, I think Hannity's radio lead in does describe his show as "the best news and information...." or something along those lines. The problem that I have with them is that their brand of angry, bottom shelf commentary has helped to destroy most reasonable dialog on the part of the corporate media. It's all sensationalism because that's what sells. And unfortunately it's polluting our political process, which was ugly enough to start with. Politics is the new "reality TV" programming where the most outrageous comments and activity are rewarded with the lion's share of the media attention. Can't wait to see the high production "trailers" in the upcoming election.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Interesting that I never hear the same comments about Matthews, Schultz, Maddow, Obermann etc. I do recall Limbaugh and others being blamed for "inflaming" people to shoot politicians as in the Giffords case. I think you give them credit for more power than they actually have.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Jon Stewart Cleans Wallace's clock.

You guys are blowing this interview way out of proportion. Jon Stewart was just being Jon Stewart. Nothing more, nothing less. In his own words "He is a comedian first, but he is more than just a comedian".

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Interesting that I never hear the same comments about Matthews, Schultz, Maddow, Obermann etc. I do recall Limbaugh and others being blamed for "inflaming" people to shoot politicians as in the Giffords case. I think you give them credit for more power than they actually have.

MSNBC is a market response to FOX. I'd comment more if I watched them. I think Olberman is now on Current (Al Gore's channel). He's a self-proclaimed opinion journalist. I did hear a recent interview with him though. This quote stuck with me.

"This is not specific to NBC or MSNBC, but I just saw an environment growing in which there were more and more conflicts of interest within these large national corporations where no matter what you said, you had the potential to affect some other part of the big company's business," Olbermann explains. "The more that that's true, the less they want you to say. Even if there is no explicit attempt to censure or to proscribe or otherwise to interfere, there becomes an issue of the larger the corporation, the more fear in the part of the people involved in its production."

As for the power of the right wing rabble rousers, it's pretty significant. They yell the loudest and that allows them to direct the national dialog. FOX presents the train wreck of a story and then the rest of the media repeats it for a few days. And if you don't repeat it then you're accused of being a media outlet that is in the pocket of the libs and protecting them.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Because they lead an army of angry, misinformed "Hannitized" "dittoheads" who think that their brand of humor and commentary are indeed news.

And the same goes for Matthews, Maddow, Urgyur, etc etc etc.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

As for the power of the right wing rabble rousers, it's pretty significant. They yell the loudest and that allows them to direct the national dialog. FOX presents the train wreck of a story and then the rest of the media repeats it for a few days. And if you don't repeat it then you're accused of being a media outlet that is in the pocket of the libs and protecting them.

Gee, I must have missed how the conservatives completely took over the protests in Wisconsin and prevented the union's point from getting out - can you point me to those stories?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think this is just your preception of Hannity etc. I think you don't like what he says and therefore see him as a rebel rouser. Outlets like MSNBC have their own agendas too. I don't have the time to get into a protracted debate with you on it but ask yourself why we aren't getting daily reports about the number of American military deaths in Afghanistan or the number of civilians who were killed as collateral damage or about how the Pakistani ISI has arrested those who helped us get Bin Laden? Why aren't we getting more stories about the "Misery Index"? I'm not saying the stories don't appear but not at the level they do when it's a Republican Admin.

Again, why not the same level of criticism of Maddow, Schultz, Obermann and Matthews? Why always Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc.? Preception?

[champu 1]

Quote

>Meanwhile, particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean
>Hannity’s show -- actually score consistently well, occasionally even
>outpacing Stewart’s own audience."

Which, I think, was one of Stewart's main points. It's both strange and a little sad that Fox News compares themselves to a comedy show as a source of news information for people.

I think Stewart shares a similar concern about Fox News as his critics share about him: that audience members are "getting their news" from clowns. It may just be that both concerns are well-warranted. Stewart preaches about responsibility other programs/people have while at the same time divesting himself of any as he's openly "A comedian first," which apparently pisses some people off. But there's no reason to get frustrated with this defense as everyone's free to ignore people when they're not being funny.

If someone actually is funny you have to laugh, however, because if you don't the terrorists win.

[quade 4]

Quote

I think Stewart shares a similar concern about Fox News as his critics share about him: that audience members are "getting their news" from clowns. It may just be that both concerns are well-warranted.

The major difference is the logo on the bottom of the broadcasts. One is clearly labeled as being from COMEDY Central while Hannity and O'Reilly says Fox NEWS.

If Fox News wasn't called that, it might be more defensible.

Additionally, Stewart and Colbert have studio audiences that laugh pretty much throughout the entire show.

Hannity and O'Reilly? I'm fairly convinced at least a good portion of their audience believe they are getting news programming rather than performances of clowns.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I think this is just your preception of Hannity etc. I think you don't like what he says and therefore see him as a rebel rouser. Outlets like MSNBC have their own agendas too. I don't have the time to get into a protracted debate with you on it but ask yourself why we aren't getting daily reports about the number of American military deaths in Afghanistan or the number of civilians who were killed as collateral damage or about how the Pakistani ISI has arrested those who helped us get Bin Laden? Why aren't we getting more stories about the "Misery Index"? I'm not saying the stories don't appear but not at the level they do when it's a Republican Admin.

I'll agree, arguing about what is not reported will take up more time than any of us have. It's just annoying that with so many stories, such as those you listed, our news media will ignore them in favor of entertainment or a political cat fight.

Quote

Again, why not the same level of criticism of Maddow, Schultz, Obermann and Matthews? Why always Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly etc.? Preception?

Again, I don't watch or listen to much from the MSNBC crowd. And like I said, theirs is a market response to the type of annoying programming that FOX built itself on. If FOX had actually been "fair and balanced" then I'm pretty sure MSNBC would not have produced as many opinion shows as they do. Now everyone does it because it sells. And we're all stupidererer for it.

One last thing though, it's possible that I do have some form of filter that makes me dislike angry right wing dialog more. Everyone has some sort of bias. But as I originally stated, I seriously dislike rude interviewers. And I've never heard MSNBC hosts tell their guests to "shut up".

(Of course, I admitted that I don't watch MSNBC. Do they do that too?)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

One last thing though, it's possible that I do have some form of filter that makes me dislike angry right wing dialog more. Everyone has some sort of bias. But as I originally stated, I seriously dislike rude interviewers. And I've never heard MSNBC hosts tell their guests to "shut up".

(Of course, I admitted that I don't watch MSNBC. Do they do that too?)

no idea about msnbc, but I've certainly heard leftist hosts prevent their callers from completing a sentence to avoid having to counter it.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

no idea about msnbc, but I've certainly heard leftist hosts prevent their callers from completing a sentence to avoid having to counter it.

It weakens their argument.